CIT Sustains AD/CV Scope Ruling on China Off Road Tires on ITA's Second Try
The Court of International Trade sustained an International Trade Administration determination that tires imported by OTR Wheel Engineering are included in the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on new pneumatic off-road tires from China (A-570-912). The court had originally remanded in June, saying the ITA should have looked at factors beyond the language of the scope, orders, and International Trade Commission injury determinations ([see Ref:12062805]).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
OTR argued its tires fall within the scope’s exclusion for tires for turf, lawn, and garden applications, and should therefore not be subject to the AD/CV duty orders. The company pointed to CIT’s recent Heritage Furniture decisions on the strict interpretation of exclusionary language in AD/CV duty order scopes. Specifically, the company said that if the scope excludes tires for turf, lawn, and garden applications, then it excludes tires that are used for those purposes as well as others. Therefore, even if the tires at issue are also used in applications that are included in the scope of an order, they aren’t subject to the order if they meet an exclusion, the company said.
The court didn’t reach a decision on that argument, finding that OTR didn’t raise the issue during the remand redetermination proceeding, and therefore didn’t exhaust its administrative remedies. The court also accepted the “further explanation” and examination of 19 CFR 351.225(k)(2) it had requested from the ITA in June. Although the evidence could have been interpreted either way, the ITA’s decision that the scope includes OTR’s tires was reasonable and supported by evidence, CIT said.
(OTR Wheel Eng'g, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 13-19, dated 03/22/13, Judge Restani)
(Attorneys: Arthur Purcell of Sandler Travis for plaintiff OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc.; Alexander Sverdlov for defendant U.S. government; Christopher Cloutier of King & Spalding for defendant-intervenors Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC)